Application 20130346783, published yesterday in the
database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, covers a
“method and arrangement for monitoring at least one battery,
battery having such an arrangement, and motor vehicle having a
corresponding battery.”

The companies said in their application that the invention
is related to battery safety functions.

On Dec. 19, electric-car company Tesla Motors Inc. said
U.S. regulators reviewing battery-related fires concluded that
Tesla’s Model S and charging system didn’t cause a fire in a
Southern California garage last month.

Patent Suit Losers Should Pay Legal Costs More Often, Court Says

Patent owners who lose infringement lawsuits should have to
pay the winners’ legal fees more often, a U.S. appeals court
said in adding its views to a debate before Congress and the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Washington yesterday ordered a judge to analyze whether memory-cell maker Kilopass Technology Inc. should pay legal fees
incurred by closely held competitor Sidense Corp.

The court must consider “whether Kilopass acted in bad
faith in light of the totality of the circumstances” even if
there’s no specific evidence of wrongdoing, Circuit Judge
Kathleen O’Malley wrote.

The Federal Circuit, which handles U.S. patent appeals, has
been grappling with how to crack down on owners who demand
royalties on patents that may not be infringed or valid. The
Supreme Court in October accepted two cases on the issue and
Congress is considering legislation that would require losers in
patent cases to pay winners’ fees.

The issue of legal fees is part of a broader debate over a
rise in patent suits by businesses whose sole mission is to
extract royalty revenue. Those entities, dubbed “patent
trolls” by critics, filed 19 percent of all patent lawsuits
from 2007 to 2011, according to the Government Accountability
Office. A White House report said more than 100,000 companies
were threatened last year with infringement claims.

“Too many patent owners are bringing claims that are
meritless and then settling for a nuisance value with the
expectation their claims would never be tested,” said Edward
Reines, a lawyer with Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in Redwood
Shores, California, who also teaches at Stanford Law School.
“The intrepid defendant who fights and wins ends up not being
compensated for their fees.”

The case is Kilopass Technology v. Sidense Corp., 13-1193,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington).

Magna Strikes Back at TRW Over Vehicle Back-Up Camera Systems

Magna International Inc.’s Magna Electronics filed a
patent-infringement complaint Dec. 23 against TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp. at the U.S. International Trade Commission in
Washington, according to a notice published Dec. 24 on the
agency’s website.

Magna seeks a ban on the importation of vision-based
driver-assistance system cameras. The company claims TRW’s
cameras infringe two of its patents.

TRW filed a trade commission complaint against Magna in
September over a patent for imaging-processing chips used in
Magna’s driver-assistance technology. It asked the commission to
block imports of Magna’s China-made Eyeris cameras.

The two companies also have patent lawsuits against each
other pending in federal court in Michigan.

For more patent news, click here.

Trademark

Amazon Is Told Plastic-based Pants With Deity Image Is Offensive

The Universal Society of Hinduism demanded that Seattle’s
Amazon.com Inc. quit carrying pants bearing the imagine of
another Hindu deity.

In a Dec. 26 e-mailed statement, the Reno, Nevada-based
society said it finds the use of the image of the elephant-headed Ganesha “worn on one’s legs, crotch and hips” to be
inappropriate.

The society said that the “Ganesha’s Dream” hot pants and
bell bottoms were offensive and should be withdrawn. According
to Amazon.com’s website, the pants are made by Teeki Inc. from
recycled plastic through the use of solar energy.

Vernon, California-based Teeki says on its website that the
pants are manufactured in California. The company also features
images drawn from tarot cards, outer space, “deer medicine”
and unicorns on its products.

The society earlier criticized the use of the Hindu deity
Vishnu in an episode of ABC’s “Agents of Shield” television
program, and persuaded Philadelphia-based Urban Outfitters Inc.
to quit selling socks with a Ganesha image. According to its
website, Urban Outfitters is still selling tapestries, duvet
covers and handbags with images of the elephant-headed Ganesha.

The group previously said it sought to erect a statue of
the religion’s Lord Hanuman among monuments on the grounds of
the Oklahoma Capitol. It said Dec. 20 that Hindus are
“heartbroken” over the reported decision by a state commission
to declare a moratorium on new monuments there.

Bed Bath & Beyond Told Not to Sell Fake Chambord Coffee Makers

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., the Union, New Jersey-based
housewares retailer, won’t be able to sell coffee makers bearing
the “Chambord” trademark, except for those actually made by
Bodum USA Inc.

According to an agreed-upon order filed in federal court
Dec. 17, fake Chambord devices must be removed from stores.

Triegen, Switzerland’s Bodum AG’s U.S. unit had said that
the housewares chain was selling coffee makers sold by one of
the company’s competitors and using the Chambord mark without
authorization. Hang tags on the offending merchandise indicated
falsely that the fake products were Chambord coffee presses, and
even included Bodum’s product identification number, according
to court papers.

The Swiss company also accused the housewares chain of
listing on its website the fake products as Chambord coffee
makers.

Bodum sought awards of money damages, including profits Bed
Bath & Beyond received from the sale of the allegedly infringing
products, a court order for the seizure and destruction of all
of the fake coffeemakers and promotional materials, and awards
of attorney fees and litigation costs.

Under terms of the Dec. 17 order, the retail chain agreed
to remove and destroy or send to Bodum’s counsel all the fake
coffee makers, and to remove all references to the fakes as
“Chambord” on its website.

Copyright

Time Warner’s ‘Game of Thrones’ Most-Pirated TV Show in 2013

Time Warner Inc.’s HBO’s “Game of Thrones” was the
television program most pirated in 2013, the news website
TorrentFreak reported.

In 2013, there were 5.9 million downloads of the show made
using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol, causing “Game of
Thrones” to beat any other program by more than 1.7 million
downloads, according to TorrentFreak.

NetApp claimed that Nimble was recruiting NetApp employees
to obtain trade secrets. Fifteen percent of Nimble’s workforce
and half of its executive staff are former NetApp employees,
according to the complaint.

Nimble trades on NetApp’s fame by telling customers that
its technology teams include former NetApp employees, NetApp
contended. The former employee downloaded confidential company
information before they left and took it with them to Nimble,
NetApp said.

In addition to trade-secret misappropriation, Nimble and
the former NetApp employees were accused of conspiring to
violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to give Nimble a
competitive advantage. The ex-employees were also accused of
violating employment contracts.

NetApp asked the court to bar the use of its trade secrets
and to grant access to laptops, hard drives, external storage
media and Nimble’s computer systems and servers to verify the
extent and nature of NetApp materials stored there. The company
also asked for money damages.

In its response, Nimble said that NetApp objected to “the
loss of talent to a hot competitor on the verge of an initial
public offering.” Filing such claims in an attempt to stem the
loss of employees to competitors “is not a legitimate basis to
initiate litigation,” according to Nimble’s Dec. 20 filing.

NetApp’s trade-secrets claims fail, Nimble argued. The
company said that in NetApp’s suit there are “no well-pled
factual allegations” that the ex-employees’ complained-of
conduct occurred while they were at Nimble.

Nimble asked the court to dismiss the suit.

The case is NetApp Inc. v. Nimble Storage Inc., 13-cv-05058, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
(San Jose).